Citations

AbstractTrial InformationClick here to access other published clinical trials.Lessons LearnedTrifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) shows promising antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma, including patients with 5-fluorouracil refractory tumors. FTD/TPI has an acceptable safety profile and should be studied further in patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma after progression on standard first-line therapy.BackgroundPatients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma (BTC) refractory to first-line therapy lack an established second-line option. Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) has activity in both fluoropyrimidine-sensitive and -resistant tumors, which led us to conduct a single arm phase II trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of FTD/TPI for patients previously treated for advanced BTC.MethodsPatients with advanced BTC previously treated with at least one line of chemotherapy were enrolled and treated with FTD/TPI until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint target was to have at least 6 patients who were progression free and alive at 16 weeks among 25 evaluable patients. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and toxicity.ResultsOf 27 evaluable patients, 59.3% received at least three prior lines of therapy, and 81.5% had previous exposure to fluoropyrimidine. Eight (32%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 14.9%–53.5%) patients were progression free at 16 weeks in the primary analysis population (n = 25), which met the predefined efficacy criteria. Median PFS and OS were 3.8 (95% CI, 2–5.8 months) and 6.1 (95% CI, 4.4–11.4 months) months, respectively. No objective responses were seen. There were no unexpected safety signals noted.ConclusionFTD/TPI demonstrated promising antitumor activity, with acceptable toxicity, in heavily pretreated patients with advanced BTC.

AbstractBackgroundCancer‐associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) carries a high rate of recurrence and death. Guidelines recommend continued anticoagulation therapy as long as active cancer persists. Apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily is the FDA‐approved dose for secondary prevention regardless of VTE causation. Whether this apixaban dose is appropriate for secondary VTE prevention in cancer patients is not clear. The rationale and design of this investigator initiated phase III, multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, trial assessing apixaban 2.5 mg vs 5 mg twice daily for 12 months for the secondary VTE prevention in cancer patients (n = 370) who have completed 6 months (but no more than 12 months) of anticoagulation is provided (NCT03080883).Methods/DesignThe primary study objective is to estimate differences in the combined rate of major plus clinically relevant non‐major bleeding for apixaban 2.5 mg vs 5 mg twice daily. Secondary efficacy outcome is to assess rates of venous or arterial thromboembolism. Participating centers are chosen from the Academic and Community Cancer Research United (ACCRU) consortium.ConclusionWe anticipate these trial results to provide evidence supporting low‐dose apixaban as a safe agent for secondary prevention of cancer‐associated VTE for patients who have already completed 6‐12 months of anticoagulation.

Abstract Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death among men and women in the United States, and additional treatment strategies are needed for patients with advanced disease. Prospective therapeutic studies based on tissue-detected genomic targets such as ERBB2 (HER2), BRAF V600E, gene rearrangements/fusions, and microsatellite instability (MSI) have demonstrated clinical benefit for mCRC patients. Although correlative studies and/or retrospective case series utilizing circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) next generation sequencing (NGS) have shown that plasma detection of these genomic targets shows promise in mCRC, prospective studies are lacking. We hypothesize that comprehensive genomic profiling of cfDNA will identify actionable targets and improve outcomes for patients with mCRC. Methods: COLOMATE (Colorectal Cancer and Liquid Biopsy Screening Protocol for Molecularly Assigned Therapy; NCT03765736) is a phase II umbrella screening protocol sponsored by the Academic and Community Cancer Research United (ACCRU) consortium. This study utilizes Guardant360™ (Guardant Health, Redwood City, CA) - a blood-based targeted NGS panel - to identify actionable genomic alterations in mCRC patients and to assess the impact of molecularly assigned therapy accordingly under its individual companion studies. Eligible mCRC patients must have progressed on, been intolerant to, or have a contraindication to treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mAbs if RAS wild-type. Companion studies are dynamic and currently include those for patients whose tumors are either RAS/BRAF wild-type, HER2 amplified, FGFR altered, RAS mutated, or without any known actionable alteration. Additional companion studies are under active development. The primary objectives of this study are to perform blood-based genomic profiling on patients with treatment refractory mCRC to facilitate accrual to molecularly assigned therapies, and to obtain patient-matched tumor tissue and cell free DNA from peripheral blood to facilitate clinically annotated genomic analyses. Secondary correlative objectives are to explore mechanisms of acquired resistance to molecularly assigned therapy and to explore the correlation between cfDNA mutational burden (allele frequency, copy number) and clinical outcomes such as objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Citation Format: Kristen K. Ciombor, Fang-Shu Ou, Andrew Dodge, Tyler Zemla, Christina Wu, Kimmie Ng, Katrina Pedersen, Shumei Kato, Pashtoon M. Kasi, Daniel Ahn, Rebecca Nagy, Richard Lanman, Scott Kopetz, John H. Strickler, Tanios Bekaii-Saab. COLOMATE: Colorectal cancer and liquid biopsy screening protocol for molecularly assigned therapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr LB-235.

TPS4596 Background: First-line treatment of mRCC has rapidly changed to include IPI-NIVO or CABO, with clinical benefit of each based on the Checkmate 214 and CABOSUN trials. Combination immunotherapy with VEGF therapies have shown benefit in the JAVELIN 101 and KEYNOTE 426 trials over sunitinib. It is yet unclear which patients (pts) benefit most from combination immunotherapy-VEGF inhibitors, and the optimal sequence of drugs. Methods: In an adaptive, randomized, multicenter, phase 3 trial (Alliance A031704, PDIGREE), pts will start treatment with induction IPI 1mg/kg and NIVO 3mg/kg intravenously (IV) once every 3 weeks. Key inclusion criteria include clear cell mRCC, IMDC intermediate or poor risk, Karnofsky performance status >70, and no prior treatments for mRCC. Based on 3-month radiographic assessment (after completing IPI-NIVO combination), pts with complete responses (CR) will undergo maintenance NIVO 480mg IV every 4 weeks, pts with progression of disease (PD) will switch to CABO 60mg oral daily, and pts with non-CR/non-PD will be randomized to NIVO 480mg IV every 4 weeks versus NIVO 480mg IV every 4 weeks with CABO 40mg oral daily. Randomization will be stratified by IMDC risk criteria and presence of bone metastases. The primary endpoint of the study is overall survival (OS). We hypothesize that 3-year OS rate will improve to 70% for NIVO-CABO compared to 60% for NIVO alone; to achieve 85% power with a two-sided alpha of 0.05 and exponential distribution, 696 patients will be randomized. Accounting for 30% patients with either CR or PD, and 5% dropout from toxicity, up to 1046 pts will be enrolled. Key secondary endpoints include PFS, 12-month CR rate, ORR based on RECIST 1.1 and irRECIST criteria, and toxicity profiles. Quality of life will be assessed based on the FKSI-19, PROMIS-fatigue, and EQ5D-5L questionnaires. Biomarkers associated with CR and association of IL-6 with treatment benefit will be assessed. Other tissue-based and plasma-based biomarkers are planned. Enrollment will begin this year. Support from UG1CA189823, U24CA196171; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT03793166.

e15169 Background: In metastatic colorectal cancer with deficient DNA mismatch repair (dMMR), anti-PD-1 antibody monotherapy produced high tumor response rates and extended progression-free survival compared to lack of benefit for cancers with proficient MMR. In an ongoing phase III randomized trial, we will determine if the addition of the anti-PD-L1 antibody, atezolizumab (Genentech), to adjuvant FOLFOX can improve patient disease-free survival (DFS) vs FOLFOX alone in patients with stage III colon cancers with dMMR. By blocking the PD-1/PD-L1 interaction, atezolizumab may activate T cells, thereby, restoring their ability to detect and attack tumor cells. Limited data suggest that FOLFOX may increase intratumoral cytotoxic CD8+ T cells that could serve as ‘immune priming'. Methods: Patients with curatively resected stage III colon carcinomas with evidence of dMMR are randomized to modified FOLFOX6 for 6 months (12 cycles) alone (control arm) or combined with atezolizumab (840 mg IV q2 wk) with continuation of the antibody as monotherapy for an additional 6 months (total duration of 12 months) [experimental arm]. Patients will be stratified by T, N stage and tumor sidedness. Local testing for MMR proteins is allowed. Atezolizumab must begin by/with cycle 2. One cycle of FOLFOX is allowed pre-registration. The targeted accrual goal of 700 patients and 165 disease-free survival (DFS) events will provide 90% power to detect an effect size expressed as hazard ratio of 0.6 for the primary endpoint of DFS at two-sided alpha of 0.05. Interim analyses are planned at 50% and 75% of events. Secondary endpoints include overall survival, treatment tolerability, and quality of life. Results: This study is being conducted by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, was approved by NCI CTEP and activated in 09/2017. The study is actively accruing and, as of 02/11/2019, 152 patients are enrolled. We are actively exploring an international collaboration. Conclusions: This is a current clinical trial in progress. Clinical trial information: NCT02912559.

PURPOSETo determine the predictive and prognostic value of the consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs) of colorectal cancer (CRC) that represent a merging of gene expression–based features largely in primary tumors from six independent classification systems and provide a framework for capturing the intrinsic heterogeneity of CRC in patients enrolled in CALGB/SWOG 80405.PATIENTS AND METHODSCALGB/SWOG 80405 is a phase III trial that compared the addition of bevacizumab or cetuximab to infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan as first-line treatment of advanced CRC. We characterized the CMS classification using a novel NanoString gene expression panel on primary CRCs from 581 patients enrolled in this study to assess the prognostic and predictive value of CMSs in these patients.RESULTSThe CMSs are highly prognostic for overall survival (OS; P < .001) and progression-free survival (PFS; P < .001). Furthermore, CMSs were predictive for both OS ( P for interaction < .001) and PFS ( P for interaction = .0032). In the CMS1 cohort, patients treated with bevacizumab had a significantly longer OS than those treated with cetuximab ( P < .001). In the CMS2 cohort, patients treated with cetuximab had a significantly longer OS than patients treated with bevacizumab ( P = .0046).CONCLUSIONThese findings highlight the possible clinical utility of CMSs and suggests that refinement of the CMS classification may provide a path toward identifying patients with metastatic CRC who are most likely to benefit from specific targeted therapy as part of the initial treatment.

Abstract Background Less than 3% of older patients with cancer are enrolled in clinical trials. To reverse this underrepresentation, we compared older patients enrolled with older-patient-specific trials, defined as those designed for older patients with cancer, with those enrolled in age-unspecified trials. Materials and Methods We focused on individual patient data from those ≥65 years (younger patients excluded) and included all Alliance phase III adjuvant breast cancer trials from 1985–2012. Results Among 2,277 patients, 1,014 had been enrolled to older-patient-specific and 1,263 to age-unspecified trials. The median age (range) in the older-patient-specific trials was 72 (65–89) years compared with 68 (65–84) years in the cohort of older patients in age-unspecified trials; p &lt; .0001. A greater percentage of patients 75 years or older had enrolled in older-patient-specific trials compared with the cohort of age-unspecified trials: 26% versus 6% (p &lt; .0001). Median overall survival (OS) was 12.8 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.9–13.7) and 13.5 years (95% CI, 12.9–14.1) for older-patient-specific and age-unspecified trials, respectively. OS was comparable (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.92–1.28; p = .34; referent: age-unspecified trials), after adjusting for age, estrogen receptor status, tumor size, and lymph node status. Similar findings were reached for recurrence-free survival. A lower rate of grade 3–5 adverse events (hematologic and nonhematologic) was reported in older-patient-specific trials (43% vs. 58%; p &lt; .0001). Sensitivity analysis with chemotherapy only trials and subset analysis, adjusted for performance score, yielded similar OS results. Conclusion Older-patient-specific trials appear to address this underrepresentation of older patients with ostensibly comparable outcomes. Clinical trial identification numbers. NCT00003088 (CALGB 9741); NCT00024102 (CALGB 49907); NCT00068601 (CALGB 40401); NCT00005970 (NCCTG N9831)

PURPOSE CALGB/SWOG 80405 was a randomized phase III trial that found no statistically significant difference in overall survival (OS) in patients with first-line metastatic colorectal cancer treated with chemotherapy plus either bevacizumab or cetuximab. Primary tumor DNA from 843 patients has been used to discover genetic markers of OS. PATIENTS AND METHODS Gene mutations were determined by polymerase chain reaction. Microsatellite status was determined by genotyping of microsatellites. Tumor mutational burden (TMB) was determined by next-generation sequencing. Cox proportional hazard models were used, with adjusting factors. Interaction of molecular alterations with either the bevacizumab or the cetuximab arms was tested. RESULTS Patients with high TMB in their tumors had longer OS than did patients with low TMB (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.95]; P = .02). In patients with microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H) tumors, longer OS was observed in the bevacizumab arm than in the cetuximab arm (HR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.30]; interaction P < .001 for interaction between microsatellite status and the two arms). Patients with BRAF mutant tumors had shorter OS than did patients with wild-type (WT) tumors (HR, 2.01 [95% CI, 1.49 to 2.71]; P < .001). Patients with extended RAS mutant tumors had shorter OS than did patients with WT tumors (HR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.26 to 1.84]; P < .001). Patients with triple-negative tumors (WT for NRAS/ KRAS/ BRAF) had a median OS of 35.9 months (95% CI, 33.0 to 38.8 months) versus 22.2 months (95% CI, 19.6 to 24.4 months ) in patients with at least one mutated gene in their tumors ( P < .001). CONCLUSION In patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated in first line, low TMB, and BRAF and RAS mutations are negative prognostic factors. Patients with MSI-H tumors benefited more from bevacizumab than from cetuximab, and studies to confirm this effect of MSI-H are warranted.